I'm curious... how bad do the collisions look? With so many hubs, I would think that would consume more bandwidth than the broadcasts.
Ken >>> "Carroll Kong" 10/24/01 11:34PM >>> [snip] Well, I admit, my response was a bit clouded by the fact that one of our clients recently requested a redesign of their flat beyond flat network. Call it justification! They are using, UGH, 10BaseT Hubs with some nasTY (with an iintentional capital T and Y), daisy chaining hub action, which REALLY exacerbated performance loss. Not to mention it's all Bay GEAR! Evil! :) Admittedly, that IS changing the premise of Priscilla's original statement. The network I am working on is HARDLY the epitome of the modern day model system Priscilla described. I am guessing with solid switches across the board, it might very well be "pretty darn good" in terms of performance. I was just curious where the new practical bar was raised to. If the situation is with 10BaseT hubs, I would not be surprised if performance is really becoming an issue where broadcasts become a percentage of your daily bandwidth. Where broadcasts are probably far more often being that even unicast packets are broadcasted on the wonderous layer 1 repeater technology known as hubs. With all switches, I am not too sure I can say clearly otherwise, but I was just wondering "how far" is a practical limit in today's modern systems? On top of that, yes, all in moderation. If we take either approach to the extreme, we clearly see significant flaws. No one wants to run subnets of 2 usable hosts each for their entire network and smash their catalyst 6509 with routing modules to oblivion. No one wants to run the 30,000 flat network from HecK. (Ok, maybe some people do...) "Look Ma, no routers!" On the side, you just noticed your statement impies that some would run multiple VLANs with a single subnet? I guess you would depend on having at least one port on both VLANs to get interconnectivity? Would that be like bridging? (unifying two layer 2 networks). Her statements on the windows protocol seem correct. Ugh, I got to whip out the old sniffer again. Or read up again. I could have sworn I STILL saw a multitude of crap flying every second on my old college network even after we went to a switch. I should try again since her points seem quite valid. Hm. Although broadcasting was necessary, in the more extreme case, does it make sense for a quote server to broadcast to another quote server? There is a small subsegment of "don't cares" for the quotes, it seems like multicast is more ideal, but probably not necessary. No matter, I am sure the demigods of broadcast control had a working solution. :) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=24090&t=23950 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
